On the struggle of the Nanai boys, say the word... A classic sample of Khrushchev cinema appears before us. Here you and the head-average, bureaucrat and formalist, etc. Here and sycophants around him, creating the illusion that he is a “good boss”, etc. On a major level, this film: a thematic craftsmanship based on "True Friends",, in which I fully agree with one of the previous reviewers. The texture of the actors and characters is exactly the same, the lines of behavior and norms of relationships are recreated. Near-moralization results of the tape are the same. .
The “post-cult” restorers of barbarism in Russia were in dire need of such films, where conformism “b” merges with “correct moral messages”. Yes, the bosses are 'bad' and we are going to fight them - see what tapes we shoot!! And the fact that around sycophants and lackeys is beyond the moral assessments of the customers of the tape and the film crew. As a result, Khrushchev’s struggle between the Nanai boys and bureaucracy and formalism resulted, I think you know for yourself: the words gourba are zero. And in the film, all subordinates and “simple” behave as well as “subject”: quietly and obediently, not disturbing the bosses, not condemning them and not warming them with the truth-womb on their stupid head. Imagine this picture in the movie of the period of the "bloody dictator": it does not work? - so I too!
You see, in Stalinist cinema, despite all its ideological wetness and frequent excesses in the "monumentality" of the characters, for any such "chief" by the end of the timekeeping came an employee of the "bloody hell" and the satrap was declared a pest. Well, as a last resort, the idiot was shamefully driven out of office and appointed a new young and energetic man. And the "chauffeur..." all remain in their places, promising to "fix" and learned the "lesson of life" by finding out the "moral". And even more so in Stalinist cinema, no one danced before superiors in office, on the contrary: the cinema of the time of the “bloody dictator” instilled in ordinary working people a different ethic of relations with the authorities, devoid of sycophancy and obedience. The scoundrels and scoundrels were not needed in the “cult” cinema, and there was no place for them there; and if they were, they ended up in the same way as the objects of application of their cholui “makings”.
Thus, I conclude that “The Driver involuntarily” is Khrushchev’s classic comedy agitation about what “good power we have” and how it will fight those who have a second wind in the “post-cult” period of the history of the USSR. This is the same as taking seriously the election posters from the EP and others about “fighting corruption”, “creating jobs”, etc. On this theme - "negligent tops" - in the Union was shot after many films, but only the sense in real life of Soviet people from them was like a goat of milk ("Prize" and "Feedback" and "We, the undersigned", and "Snow in July".
The rift between “cult” and “post-cult” cinema is precisely this: Stalinist cinema squeezed a stranglehold on the neck of such formalist bureaucrats and whipped them on the ass, keeping them in tone and repelling the desire to carry out “reckless” actions under the “Real Threat of Criminal Responsibility” for discrepancy in the real activity of the essence of the official position (the same applies to the cunning and cunning period, these people began to be removed from responsibility and cunning).
The purpose of such films was one: to fool the brains of an ordinary Soviet laborer, who saw that the "bureaucratic contagion" after 1953 began to raise his head. To fool, instilling with false moralization the illusion that "the authorities see everything - the authorities fight - communism is close" and other-other-other.
The price of all this was realized by some in 1962, when the “bloody dictator” and “anti-repressionists” unambiguously shot workers in Novocherkassk who spoke out against their policies.
5 out of 10
